Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..
On 4 May 2004 14:39:30 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..

True, torture may be wrong, but unless the combatants qualify
as POW's, the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, although other
international conventions may. Thus, e.g., you can still shoot
spies.

Since torture is wrong, it doesn't matter if the Geneva Conventions
for POWs or civilians apply or not.

It does cound if you are citing the Geneva Conventions, since these
are only applicable to real POWs.

If you wil review the thread and folow the link I provided you will
find that I was citing the:

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

In response to the incorrect statement regarding accepted standards
of torture.

As you will recall, you introduced the Geneva Convention on POWs
into the discussion. It was entirely appropriate for you to do so,
I'd just rather you accpe tthe credit you deserve.



Consider the Nurenberg trials--
criminals were executed for crimes which violated no statute
or treaty. Rightly so, IMHO, they were tried and executed under
common law.

Quibble, common law never included the ancient sport of
"waging offensive warfare". True, the Nazis pretty much deserved
what they got.

I'm not certain that anyone at Nurenberg was tried for simply waging
war. I was thinking of trials for murdering fellow citizens.


However, the prosecution of Japanes generals generated some
scary precedents. For example, following the precident set by the
prosecution of General Yama****a, an area commander is responsible
for any abuses committed by the troops in his area, even if they are
not under his control and even if he has proved his reluctance to
commit atrocities.

Yes. That is the doctrine of command responsibility. Mere ignorance
of those crimes is not a defense. In Yama****a's case it was proven
that capital crimes were openly commotted within 200 yards of his
office showing that even if he was ignorant of those crimes, his
ignorance was willful at best. ALthough, unlike Remsfeld and Bush,
Yama****o did prove that he gave orders intended to prevent those
crimes it is also clear that he did not enforce those orders in
any effective way.


I also support the doctrine of command responsibility. While there
are, as of yet, only rumors that the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan
were ordered, there are accusations that the responsible officers
took no action to prevent the abuses, which leaves those officers
without a defense. Further, the public sentiments toward prisoners
expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld, clearly fostered the abuses that
have been publicised during the last two years.

Google "Yama****a" and "Manila". Set a scary precident.

Not when you consider the factual evidence against Yama****a. His
defense was a sham. Note also that his conviction was uphelp
upon appeal to a Federal Court, demonstrating that trials conducted
outside of the US ARE subject to judicial review within the US.


Summary execution of suspected spies has been explicitley outlawed
since at least the 1907 Hague conventions.

Not true. E.g., some German sabateurs were executed in WW2.

Yes it is true. See the 1907 Hague Conventions. THey are online.

If
you mean, you have to try them in a military court before execution,
this is correct.

Of course. Please recall your earlier statement
"the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, [persons who do not
qualify as POWs] although other international conventions may.
Thus, e.g., you can still shoot spies.

I inferred that you meant summary execution. But to be clear,
suspected spies and sabotuers ARE protected under the 1949
Geneva Conventions, unti after conviction by a cometent court
or tribunal. either way the statement was factually incorrect,
though a very common misconception.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5038963

I might be inclined to suppose that the soldier might not have
intended to kill the prisoner, but for now accept the use of
'murder' by Reuters.

Depends of the circumstances. E.g., supposed prisoners in Afganistan
revolted and killed severl US soldiers.

Not the instant case. But we need to read a transcript of the
actual news release. I've asked Mr Yardpilot to help us
out there.


And yes, prisoners are supposed to get some sort of hearing
to determine their POW status.

More than 'some sort'. The word 'competent', a legal term of
art, is used. Tribunals established by Presidential decree
would fail the competency test since the US Constitution
empowers the Congress to establish courts not the President
and past USSC cases have held that the Congress cannot delegate
authority to the President, when that authority is original
to the Congress in the Constitution.

Actually, it can be a military tribunal.


Yes, but it must be 'competent' a legal term of art that implies, a
at the very least, that it is legal according to the laws of the
detaining Power. Bush's proposed tribunals are, at best,
Constitutionally questionable.

--

FF